(02-11-2011 12:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote: So, your original statement implies we need some mechanism to obtain information about the creation, despite the fact that god was there and could have told us more than what he did.

My point was that what we observe supports the idea of a creator.

Quote:You are aware of the fact that no one here believes that the creation is true or possible, right?

And that belief affects how you interpret the facts you observe. Much of the evidence cited in support of evolution can be explained equally well by the Biblical account of creation but if you don't believe in a creator your beliefs will force you to reject such explanations.

Quote:The natural laws of the universe do not apply to supernatural phenomenon (like god or the creation) and therefore any proposed supernatural event is not only unlikely but as far as we know it is impossible. And a separate natural explanation for the beginning of the universe, the origin of our solar system, the origin of Earth, the origin of life, the evolution of all life from a common ancestor, etc, etc all fall within the realm of natural explanations.

But can you prove that those natural explanations are true? There is no way to test them. I don't deny the existence of natural laws. I simply believe that it was God who established them in the first place.

Quote:You put forth archaic ideas that violate the laws of nature and require "faith." That is, they require belief without evidence. So, in your search for evidence, are you not violating your faith? That is, by looking for evidence you are confirming your doubt about the bible.

Christian faith does not mean belief without evidence. It means believing in something strongly enough that you are willing to live your entire life on the belief that it is true. You are obviously so convinced that there is no God that you base everything you do on that belief. What you are doing is exercising faith according to the Biblical meaning of the word.

It seems to me that both of us have the same kind of faith. The only difference is the object of that faith. I believe that there is a God who created the universe and you believe that the existence of the universe can be explained without the existence of a creator.

The information in ancient libraries came from real minds of real people. The far more complex information in cells came from the far more intelligent mind of God.

Theophilus, I'm giving you an award Sorry I'm new so it can't be a real upvote or anything, but you've done well to keep your calm, it can't be easy when there's 5 guys arguing with you and you're all on your lonesome. Lots of typing for you to do to answer all our posts

This argument has devolved into you're wrong so there debate again. We all know where we stand so it's futile to bother trying to sway one another. Just talk and at least try to entertain eachothers viewpoints. Otherwise there is no point talking to eachother.

I have a question for you theo as I've noticed something as a reaccuring comment. You say that because someone is atheist it gives them a biased point of view when attempting to prove things and while I think you couldn't be more wrong in that assumption I do think it is valid as an argument against starting out with the belief there is a god. Doesn't the belief in god kind of destroy any motivating factor as far as the sciences ate concerned? I mean the answer should always be the same shouldn't it? God did it. Wouldn't it also prevent someone from looking at evidence objectively if they find something contradictory to their belief in god?

Now why starting out from the atheist standpoint is actually the more effective scientific method. It holds no actual bias. That is a religious persons misconception as has been pointed out to you before. Atheism is a lack of belief due to a lack of evidence not in the face of evidence. Thereby an atheist scientist has no doctrine to overcome when examining evidence. Just the evidence. Just because the evidence isn't out there proclaiming gods existence doesn't mean the scientist is biased that's just how it came about. You forget as do all the religious people I have ever spoken to, that science isn't out to prove or disprove gOd, it's just trying to learn about how everythIng works so we can improve life. The opposite of what religion is trying to do with science.

"I think of myself as an intelligent, sensitive human being with the soul of a clown which always forces me to blow it at the most important moments." -Jim Morrison

As I said in my last post, I started out my journey through science a christian trying to use science to see god. And that led me to atheism when I came to the conclusion that there is not any evidence for god and the universe behaves in a largely random way, in other words, it behaves in a way that is concurrent with there not being any guiding force.

"My point was that what we observe supports the idea of a creator."
That is your opinion based on an unscientific interpretation of evidence. There is a logical reason why scientists reject it, because no independent evidence suggests it, not because they are out to disprove god.

"But can you prove that those natural explanations are true? There is no way to test them. I don't deny the existence of natural laws. I simply believe that it was God who established them in the first place."
We can test these natural explanations. We do it everyday. Large Hadron colliders, geochemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, etc. These scientists are always formulating hypotheses to test the natural world. Go to the moon and test that gravity is in fact a constant by dropping a hammer and a feather and watch them hit at the same time. Your assertion of the natural laws being emplaced by a supernatural being is untestable and unfalsifiable which makes it completely unscientific. Say it with me: "my opinions on the universe are not based on scientific evidence but are based on my own biased opinions generated from a bronze age book."

Definition of FAITH

1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

Your definition of faith is not the actual definition. Faith is a belief with lack of evidence. My beliefs are evidence based and are therefore (by definition) the opposite of faith. We don't use the bible for definitions because it is not the authority for defining anything other than christian dogma. That and it has been translated so many times that the original words/meanings are likely wrong in many portions. The story of the "virgin" birth was most likely translated incorrectly and virgin should have translated as "young woman."

"It seems to me that both of us have the same kind of faith. The only difference is the object of that faith. I believe that there is a God who created the universe and you believe that the existence of the universe can be explained without the existence of a creator."
And my belief is evidence based whereas your belief is non-evidence and faith-based.

Which leads me back to the question of why are you on this forum? To debate (which you are not doing because you do not entertain the idea of being wrong) or to proselytize? If the latter you should probably consider another method, like standing on a street corner handing out pamphlets.

(03-11-2011 11:02 AM)morondog Wrote: Theophilus, I'm giving you an award Sorry I'm new so it can't be a real upvote or anything, but you've done well to keep your calm, it can't be easy when there's 5 guys arguing with you and you're all on your lonesome. Lots of typing for you to do to answer all our posts

But he doesn't answer all of our posts and often only cherry picks points out of them to reply to.

(03-11-2011 11:48 AM)lucradis Wrote: Atheism is a lack of belief due to a lack of evidence not in the face of evidence.

Just because the evidence isn't out there proclaiming gods existence doesn't mean the scientist is biased that's just how it came about.

Yay! Well said that man! You show me some evidence for God. A talking snake or a talking pillar of fire would be a good start. Or even some genuine cause and effect. Prayer which heals an amputated leg for example - after all, healing flu and getting lame people to walk are things that even two-bit televangelists can do And here I am still an atheist... you'd think after all the televised healing that goes on it would be a done deal, established scientific fact Absolute established scientific fact is that if you have a broken leg your first port of call is definitely not the church. If Christianity or any religion worked we'd be all over it

Quote:But he doesn't answer all of our posts and often only cherry picks points out of them to reply to.

You're right, but let's give the man a chance - he's got five times the writing to do that any individual one of us has and some logical gymnastics on top of that before he can post a reply

I'm kinda afraid that I broke my rational pose by doing quite an unseemly war-dance using Ludacris's post as a catalyst I do apologize for lowering the tone...

Why anyone bothers explaining anything to this chap is beyond me. For as nicely put as we can put evolution in plain english...these types still hold on to a Creationist God..an Intelligent Designer so to speak.

A Creator or Intelligent Designer has to be intelligent to design anything. The bible proves over and over that god is bumbling fool at best. You have to demonstrate his intelligence first before you can claim his accomplishments. All he's demonstrated is that he continues to make flawed creations and backs himself into a corner each time and his only solutions are genocide and mass murder. Quite unoriginal. Yeah Yeah, he gave us free will...i know the drill. And his only solution is to have his finger on the Nuke button.

Its easy to see why Dawkins and his ilk refuse to debate these types. There is zero listening, learning or comprehending going on. They are simply waiting for their turn to talk. I've yet to seen an original argument made about this stuff since i was a kid.

Gods "Solutions" always end up with someone dying. Flood Victims, Exodus, His only son, and the end times. He's just a school yard bully, not a scientist in a lab coat.

These arguments are quite interesting though, to me. Maybe I'm just not as jaded. I've never met an honest-to-God creationist before, My best friend is quite dogmatically Christian but he's not a creationist. I want to understand how someone can believe something this crazy.

I've never managed to figure my friends out, they're all intelligent but they believe this stuff through and through. To them, I seem like the dogmatic one. When I argue with them they're always saying things like "No no, but you've assumed no God from the outset" and I have to think very carefully about whether this is a valid criticism or not... So I'm not explaining more than arguing - I want to know what he thinks and I don't care a damn about convincing him that I'm right or wrong - I want to see his mind at work

The Christians do actually have their own set of logical rules and ways of thinking, at least the guys I know, it's just very much not the scientific method... it's a sort of... codified mysticism. It fascinates me...

These arguments are quite interesting though, to me. Maybe I'm just not as jaded. I've never met an honest-to-God creationist before, My best friend is quite dogmatically Christian but he's not a creationist. I want to understand how someone can believe something this crazy.

I've never managed to figure my friends out, they're all intelligent but they believe this stuff through and through. To them, I seem like the dogmatic one. When I argue with them they're always saying things like "No no, but you've assumed no God from the outset" and I have to think very carefully about whether this is a valid criticism or not... So I'm not explaining more than arguing - I want to know what he thinks and I don't care a damn about convincing him that I'm right or wrong - I want to see his mind at work

The Christians do actually have their own set of logical rules and ways of thinking, at least the guys I know, it's just very much not the scientific method... it's a sort of... codified mysticism. It fascinates me...

I get what you are saying. What part of the world are you in?
Here in Memphis TN if you say you DONT believe in Creation you get the strangest looks as if you've just said the moon is made of whipped cream. I can throw a rock and hit a dozen of them. I am surrounded by them.
The arrogance astounds me. NO thought into what they believe, just this cultural discipleship. I recently shared the HARD facts about the the Exodus story to a pal of mine who has left the charismatic church (not christianity). He's one of the smartest guys i know and has great apologist type arguments. When he saw the real stats, he even admitted that it blew him away. Sadly, blokes like him are few and far between. It requires a 'thinking' brain and the ability to admit that a POV may be wrong. As Seth has stated before...these fundies START with the Answer (god/jesus) and then reverse engineer the rest to fit their dogma.

(03-11-2011 02:35 PM)Denicio Wrote: Here in Memphis TN if you say you DONT believe in Creation you get the strangest looks as if you've just said the moon is made of whipped cream. I can throw a rock and hit a dozen of them. I am surrounded by them.

You poor bastard, no wonder you're bleak That's rough. I'll tell you what gets me - Christian girls are often super hot - and they're all looking for a nice young *Christian* man to settle down with. And then they'll waste time reading verses and wondering if they've offended some dude who lives in the sky and... it all seems so *bloody* pointless... I'm in the UK right now but I'm from South Africa / Zimbabwe and in both those countries... explicitly atheist = hard to get a date

There's not such a raging debate in SA over creationism as far as I know. We have a few charismatic churches and overall the population is 90% extremely Christian... somehow though they're not as defensive. They're convinced as always that the world is oppressing them... But the absolutist creationist mindset seems to be lacking - maybe because the catholic church is strong and also the church of England, both of which tend to have very fluid positions on anything which they might be caught out with. Also everyone over there knows that these Western scientists are all part of a plot to make Christianity look bad so debate hardly ever gets started But ja, I don't commonly wave my opinion around - this forum is providing a nice outlet for me

The interesting thing to me is that the idea of *not* starting with your conclusion is quite a new one. Ages ago I read in a book somewhere that the method of proof in the middle ages, for a concept, was that you'd think of an idea, then look for evidence to *support* it. It sounds perfectly reasonable, until you contrast it with the modern method of looking for evidence to *disprove* it. It's just like, you change your perspective by the tiniest amount and suddenly from a method which frequently led to incorrect answers you're looking at the full power of the scientific method It's that kind of thing that makes me happy.

But he doesn't answer all of our posts and often only cherry picks points out of them to reply to.

So? I don't wanna kill 'im. I wanna kill creationism, I got YHWH and science on my side as an atheist - if he don't wanna hear it from me - I got no beef with him being here. When I was a theist, i usta "scold" the evolutionists for improper moral practice... testing my morality is how I know everything about morality - and nobody likes a know-it-all, even me.

The heck with me - this is all about you defining faith for the win. Anybody saying this is the wrong definition - is merely lacking understanding.

(03-11-2011 01:26 PM)Denicio Wrote: Why anyone bothers explaining anything to this chap is beyond me. For as nicely put as we can put evolution in plain english...these types still hold on to a Creationist God..an Intelligent Designer so to speak.

Denicio

I question your typology.

Just because I'm thinking of methodology to win the argument with finality long-term; this cat ain't "representing" a threat in my "I kills 'em all" dislike of creationism...

This is fledgling vampire - an easy roll for turning.

And anybody can say anything they want on-line. I know creationism doomed from personal interaction - makes a big difference, that kinda knowing - (but it makes me wonder - shouldn't atheist know this?) and can thus accurately predict my own failure state. Simply, I have yet to find a corner dark enough for the kinda light I radiate - ego earned from experience - all I'm proving is that patience can be learned and tested from a multiplicity of source material.

I have no added value in arguing evolution to a creationist at this time.